Some unrelated recent military procurment storiess since I am getting bored of Ukraine

[Nevins]

Someone mentioned war is boring?

Supposed report about dogfighting tests vs. F-16.
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/rea...t-719a4e66f3eb

Sounds a bit close to the lamentations of the F-16 designer but it seems the hope should be there will be no dogfighting.

Yeah, was mentioning that shill piece in particular. Take anything by David Axe by the most massive grain of salt that you can

[Condottiere 40K]

Outside of being an American tax payer who is footing the bill for the continuing development and procurement of the most expensive weapons programme outside of the Death Star, why would he remain so militantly sceptical?

Axe appears to be willing to take risks with his life to report from conflict zones, and appears to have devoted quite a deal of his time to study defence issues, so his opinion is certainly worth considering.
9462

[Nevins]

Outside of being an American tax payer who is footing the bill for the continuing development and procurement of the most expensive weapons programme outside of the Death Star, why would he remain so militantly sceptical?

Because he has a personal grudge against it, or because he knows that he can get absurd amounts of traffic by publishing his shill for the legions of armchair generals on the internet who seem to be so amazingly well educated on aviation whenever the magic word F35 pops up

Axe appears to be willing to take risks with his life to report from conflict zones

Lol, no one cares. How does this qualify him to write on aviation

and appears to have devoted quite a deal of his time to study defence issues, so his opinion is certainly worth considering.
9462

Wow, so because he wrote a bunch of stuff on the military makes him qualified to comment on highly classified defense projects with capabilities he probably doesnt understand as I see 0 technical education of any kind in his background. Seeing as I had the chance to talk with the USMC deputy commandant for education on this myself I'll go with Lt Gen Davis's opinion over the blogger.

[Condottiere 40K]

13483
The F-35 was a compromise between differing political and military needs and requirements. Nothing anyone can say or do will ever cancel the programme from running it's course.

It will probably be successful, once the bugs are completely ironed out, if the Americans go for a pre-emptive strike, but in a war of attrition F-35 squadrons will be increasingly decimated, evidenced by the fact that skincare requires an entirely new department, which means that the F-35 will increasingly become visible to their opponents, assuming that their opponents either can't equally blind the Americans, haven't improved sensors that can detect the F-35, or haven't discovered how to manufacture an aircraft nearly as stealthy as the F-35.

The extended development time certainly cuts down on any window of superiority, and the increasing cost cuts down on the numbers that will be purchased, or will force cannibalization of other platforms.

[ShockBlast]

13483
The F-35 was a compromise between differing political and military needs and requirements. Nothing anyone can say or do will ever cancel the programme from running it's course.

It will probably be successful, once the bugs are completely ironed out, if the Americans go for a pre-emptive strike, but in a war of attrition F-35 squadrons will be increasingly decimated, evidenced by the fact that skincare requires an entirely new department, which means that the F-35 will increasingly become visible to their opponents, assuming that their opponents either can't equally blind the Americans, haven't improved sensors that can detect the F-35, or haven't discovered how to manufacture an aircraft nearly as stealthy as the F-35.

The extended development time certainly cuts down on any window of superiority, and the increasing cost cuts down on the numbers that will be purchased, or will force cannibalization of other platforms.

Stealth is only for tactical situations only.
For F-35 and F-22 to remain stealth they will have to shut down their radar and the best passive detection system (IRST) is installed in German Eurofighters who only reaches 10 km.

So an up to date plane with a AESA radar on get`s to get the lock-on on a F-22 with the radar turned off way earlier.

Stealth would be a boon for SEAD and infiltration of enemy space but not much help in a BVR combat.

[Nevins]

13483
The F-35 was a compromise between differing political and military needs and requirements. Nothing anyone can say or do will ever cancel the programme from running it's course.

It will probably be successful, once the bugs are completely ironed out, if the Americans go for a pre-emptive strike, but in a war of attrition F-35 squadrons will be increasingly decimated, evidenced by the fact that skincare requires an entirely new department, which means that the F-35 will increasingly become visible to their opponents, assuming that their opponents either can't equally blind the Americans, haven't improved sensors that can detect the F-35, or haven't discovered how to manufacture an aircraft nearly as stealthy as the F-35.

The extended development time certainly cuts down on any window of superiority, and the increasing cost cuts down on the numbers that will be purchased, or will force cannibalization of other platforms.

So I guess we've moved on from David Axe. Great.

[Condottiere 40K]

25357
I wouldn't say that.

There's a lot of things wrong with the F-35 programme, most problematic is that you can't cancel it, compared to the LCS programme, which you could, since the USN has alternatives, and didn't put almost all of it's eggs into that one basket.

Axe is a reminder that the public shouldn't take anything on trust from the military industrial compex, whether the fatcats from Lockheed, or the deskjockeys in the Pentagon, both whose futures and bonuses are deeply tied into the continuation of the F-35 programme, though not necessarily in a successful product.

The F-35 is probably the last gasp and grasp of a solely manned fighter programme that will be allowed an unlimited budget and leeway, which makes it so vitally critical to the vested industrial and military interests.

It tries to be everything to everyone, the USN, the USAF and the USMC, and finally politicians, where practically every district has a company that is a subcontractor, and came about because Lockheed wasn't allowed to sell the F-22, and needed to dominate the shrinking Western fighter market.

There's little doubt in my mind that we need STOVL fighters, and that price and performance can be compromised for them. The rest is just to make up the volume for the shareholder value.

[Adar]

The interesting thing with the F-35 report is not what David Axe says, it is what the report itself state. Since the plug was pulled on the F-22 Lockheed have completely abandoned branding the F-35 as an affordable strike fighter and instead tried to play it off as an air superiority fighter. Not only touting it's stealth and DAS but also making some pretty wild claims about the kinematic performance of the F-35 such as:

Source
Lockheed Martin is claiming that all three versions of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) will have kinematic performance better than or equal to any combat-configured fourth-generation fighter. The comparison includes transonic acceleration performance versus an air-to-air configured Eurofighter Typhoon and high angle-of-attack flight performance vis-à-vis the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet."The F-35 is comparable or better in every one of those metrics, sometimes by a significant margin, in both air-to-air, and when we hog-up those fourth-generation fighters, for the air-to-ground mission," says Billy Flynn, a Lockheed test pilot who is responsible for flight envelope expansion activities for all three variants.But the Lockheed claims are strongly disputed by other sources, including one veteran Super Hornet test pilot with thousands of hours in that aircraft. "These claims are technically inaccurate from my point of view as a professional test pilot," he says. "An aircraft with small control surfaces intended for stealth cannot produce such fantastical results in maneuverability; a little wing cannot produce a lot of lift period.

For me there is also some personal satisfaction on the whole topic as I got a long history on the forum arguing about this where I, Pielstick and others argue using physics while certain other members usually end up claiming that physics are invalid because Lockheed Martin experts said so (a very good example of this debate).

When it comes to kinematics we have made the following arguments:

1. The small control areas as measured by wingload means that the F-35 will have a worse turn and pitch rate than it's competitors (example).

2. High angles of attack does not compensate for this as it will make the F-35 bleed too much energy during manouvres (example).

3. The size of the F-35 mean that it will suffer far more drag at transonic and supersonic speed which puts it at a severe disadvantage in acceleration at combat speeds (example and another example).

4. That the G-limitations makes the sustained turn rate worse than competitors (example).

Some quotes from the report proves conclusively that we were bang on target about this.

Source
Energy manouverability (=our arguments about thrust to weight and size of he aircraft)
Overall, the most noticeable characteristic of the F-35A in a visual engagement was its lack of energfy manouverability.
…
The EM of the F-35A is substantially inferio to the F-15E with PW-229s due to a smaller wing, similar weight and ~15 000 lbs less in afterburner thrust. So, in general the high AoA of the jet could not be used in an effective way withou significantly reducing follow-on manouvering potential. Even with the limited F-16 target configuration, the F-35A remained at a distinct energy disadvantage for every engagement.

Pitch rate (our arguments abou turn rates)
Insufficient pitch rate exacerbated the lack of EM. Energy deficit to the bandit would increase over time.

The proposed software revisions in the article will hopefully solve some of the issues with the turn rate limitations. But sustained G-forces have been a major issue in the F-35 development due to the weight issues and complex design so software changes giving pilots more freedom will be limited by how much force the hardware can handle. Superior sensor systems may help the F-35 to compensate for this but personally I am skeptic both that the sensors are superior enough if competing with modern fighters (example).

[Condottiere 40K]

52694
The original intent of the JSF is to manufacture a successor fighter for the Marines, the Air Force and the Navy, at a third of the price of the F-22.

Which at a hundred million is around thirty three and a third million bucks.52709

[Condottiere 40K]

60495
“The program has not yet completed the System Development and Demonstration (SDD) phase, and is not due to enter full rate production until 2019, 17 years after its inception,” the committee’s question starts. “Do you believe the nation can afford to procure these aircraft at a cost of $12B to $15B per year for nearly the next 20 years for an aircraft design that will be 30 years old at the completion of the program procurement phase?” Then the committee asks Dunford if he supports the requirement for 2,443 Joint Strike Fighters.
The prospective chairman calls the F-35 a “vital component of our effort to ensure the Joint Force maintains dominance in the air.” But there is a big but. He discloses that the requirement for the size of the fleet is being reviewed: “Given the evolving defense strategy and the latest Defense Planning Guidance, we are presently taking the newest strategic foundation and analyzing whether 2,443 aircraft is the correct number. Until the analysis is complete, we need to pursue the current scheduled quantity buy to preclude creating an overall near-term tactical fighter shortfall.”
(A source close to the program was comfortable with the need for review and said nothing has changed strategically enough to change the need for 2,443 planes.)
Dunford ends by arguing the Pentagon “has been working diligently to make the overall cost per F-35 more affordable. Additionally, there will continue to be critical updates throughout the life cycle of the F-35 that will ensure the platform maintains a tactical advantage.”

TLRWe put all our eggs in one basket, and that ship sailed long ago.

[Vanoi]

http://theweek.com/articles/565028/r...ce-falling-sky

The mighty Russian Air Force seems to be having a little trouble.

[Condottiere 40K]

Might be pilot error.

It seems that the F-35 gets downgraded from lame to dead duck; it would seem the current model probably won't be able to see first, shoot first, if it's using it's onboard sensors, against current frontline fighters.

However, this view may have overlooked the fact that the F-35 could be backed up by an AWACS plane.

[Nevins]

20 years for an aircraft design that will be 30 years old at the completion of the program procurement phase?”

This is why people who sit on those committees should at least have some kind of basic knowledge of what they are talking about. Someone needs to explain to them how old ALL of the current aircraft designs are DECADES after their inception

[Pielstick]

Since the plug was pulled on the F-22 Lockheed have completely abandoned branding the F-35 as an affordable strike fighter and instead tried to play it off as an air superiority fighter.

Pretty much this.

The F-35 might just possibly be the right aircraft for the USAF. Is it the right aircraft for the USN? Probably not. The right aircraft for the USMC? Definitely not. The right aircraft for the UK, Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Canada and all the rest? Again, most certainly not.

The capabilities of the F-35 are irrelevant. What is relevant is the political and commercial interests which have lobbied hard to make sure the F-35 is not just the "right" choice, but the only choice. The military-industrial complex tail is wagging the government/armed forces dog.

When it comes to kinematics we have made the following arguments:

1. The small control areas as measured by wingload means that the F-35 will have a worse turn and pitch rate than it's competitors (example).

2. High angles of attack does not compensate for this as it will make the F-35 bleed too much energy during manouvres (example).

3. The size of the F-35 mean that it will suffer far more drag at transonic and supersonic speed which puts it at a severe disadvantage in acceleration at combat speeds (example and another example).

4. That the G-limitations makes the sustained turn rate worse than competitors (example).

Some quotes from the report proves conclusively that we were bang on target about this.

Now this is an excellent example of how F-35 proponents keep moving the goalposts so F-35 will always seem like the best choice.

If you bring up F-35's inferior kinematic performance the proponents will say that it's irrelevant because F-35 (just like F-22), is a BVR murder machine and will easily swip every opponent out of the sky before they even know F-35 is there.

To which I say:

- If kinematics are now irrelevant, why was one of the original F-35 requirements to be at least as agile as the aircraft it replaced (i.e. F-16 and F/A-18)? If we now live in the age of air combat where AMRAAM reigns supreme why are aircraft like the F-22, Typhoon and Su-35 WVR monsters?

- What makes you think BVR weapons systems have suddenly become so effective given their hitherto disappointing performance?

- Given the disappointing showing of BVR missiles thus far, what makes you think they remain effective in the face of state of the art electronic warfare and decoy systems deployed on all modern fighters?

- If everybody is stealthed up, does that not make BVR a much harder proposition?

- Given the above three points, are you really, really sure the F-35 is going to reliably get the BVR kill every time, or will it conceivably find itself in the situation where it needs to manoeuvre?

So our F-35 proponent now considers this, before moving the goalposts again.... We have modern HOBS missiles with ridiculous manoeuvre capabilities. These have made BFM and dogfighting irrelevant.

Ok. Those modern HOBS missiles like AIM-9X, IRIS-T, ASRAAM..... none of which have ever been used in combat. So we're back to repeating the same mistakes made in Vietnam.... putting all our faith in untested and unproven weapons and technology and declaring the tried and tested methods of shooting the other guy's aeroplanes down as obsolete and a thing of the past.

So what happens when the first HOBS missile misses?

A dogfight. A fight which the F-35 isn't optimised for and performs worse than the aircraft it is slated to replace.

Finally, there's also the logical disconnect between using a stealthy, super duper "5th gen" gold plated strike fighter to fly into the teeth of the enemy air defences to drop a cheap and unsophisticated JDAM. Can someone tell me how that is in any way a better choice than say loading a couple of Storm Shadows or JASSM on a much cheaper aircraft like a Tornado or F-15 and launching them from 200 miles away, staying way out of the enemy's air defence engagement envelope? Let me get this right... old fashioned dogfights are obsolete and are no longer the best way to shoot down aeroplanes, but going down town into the teeth of enemy air defences and dropping an explosives filled metal casing onto somebody's head is still definitely the optimal way to take out a ground target?

Sending a stealth aircraft over the enemy's head to drop a bomb on him is a better and more sensible proposition than shooting a stealth missile at him from a safe distance where the risk to the aircraft and aircrew is minimised?

Oh sorry I forgot, that won't make as much money for Lockheed, and then they wouldn't be able to fund the election campaigns of all those senators and congressmen. Silly me

[Condottiere 40K]

1531
I have to disagree somewhat.

You need a STOVL fighter, and the F-35 is the only game in town. Until tilt-rotors can go supersonic.

While some might think netability is a nice option, it's actually an essential survival mechanism for the F-35, since it can't survive on it's own.

[Pielstick]

Why do you need a STOVL fighter?

[Mangalore]

1531
I have to disagree somewhat.

You need a STOVL fighter, and the F-35 is the only game in town. Until tilt-rotors can go supersonic.

While some might think netability is a nice option, it's actually an essential survival mechanism for the F-35, since it can't survive on it's own.

What do you need STOVL for? I can imagine only scenarios where either helicoptres will suffice or a more potent fleet carrier will be around with far more and better fighters / bombers. Particularly for the US their usage seems a bit hypothetic, in case of the RN it seems solely a necessity because they chose heliopter carriers to be the leftover of former fleet carriers and focussed on anti submarine warfare.

[Condottiere 40K]

3138
You need a STOVL fighter because secondary navies are building enlarged helicopter carriers.

And further down the line, because lilypadding becomes easier.

[Pielstick]

Outside of an apocalyptic WW3 scenario, STOVL fighters are a waste of time. Likewise as somebody who has been up close and personal HMS Illustrious, HMS Ark Royal, HMS Ocean, USS Dwight D Eisenhower, USS Enterprise and USS George H W Bush...... with aircraft embarked..... all I can say is go big or go home.

[Condottiere 40K]

5086
The Americans need their amphibious carriers to make up the shortfall for their actual carriers, which in the age of paying for the F-35 programme, even they can't afford to build any more. Or at least, not the type represented by the Fords.

If you recall, I thought earlier that the RN would bite the bullet and install catapults in the QEs, which would give them the option to operate any suitably adapted fighter. They didn't.

The Japanese don't and won't install catapults on their helicopter destroyers, but they may like the Chinese to believe it wouldn't take too much effort to carrierify them.